Haha what? The war was over before the US dropped the bombs, the Japanese (by most accounts) simply refused to surrender. Even if the war had continued conventionally Japan was finished.Life_Is_A_Mess said:
What is the hardest country to invade?
- Thread starter siahsargus
- Start date
Costliest: America
Bloodiest: Vietnam/China/Korea (ie, Jungle enviroments)
Longest: Russia
Overall: id have to say russia
Bloodiest: Vietnam/China/Korea (ie, Jungle enviroments)
Longest: Russia
Overall: id have to say russia
Good job thinking like the Vietcong. Take a day when no one suspects an invasion, and then strike. (Tet Offensive)William Ossiss said:
OT:
I'd probably say the US if only due to how vehement our patriotism is, and our gigantic military budget keeping our military in as good a shape as it can. Technologically I think that America is one of the best, if not the best, military in the world, and I think that would help in any sort of invasion, and somewhat offset any sort of gap in the numbers between the two armies.
I wouldn't count anywhere nonexistent. Show me proof that it exists and I'll humor the idea.E.X.D. said:
By setting it to unlimited army size, you are favouring territory and tech quality over countries that have large populations or high conscription rates. A lot of Russia's WW2 successes were based on production capability, not military quality.
Assuming Spartans retained their armed forces skill and disposition, but existed to this day using modern weapons, I think their military force would be quite formidable. Combined with your even-forces stipulation, they'd theoretically do very well in a pound-for-pound fight. However, I think France would come out on top if you were to imagine historical armies brought up to date, due to Napoleon. He may have had his flaws (being unwilling to risk his favourite elite troops, for one) but he did manage to terrorise Europe repeatedly and inspired whole coalitions against him. An invasion against Napoleon would be the most costly, as it'd probably result in a counter-invasion and an overall loss.
OK, so back to modern forces. I think ultimately it's going to boil down to the five big boys: US, Russia, UK, France and China, mainly due to their access to the nuclear option. If such an option were deployed in response to an invasion, it would instantly top all the stated categories, as it'd be as good as a loss (probably for both involved). So, out of those five...
Costliest invasion: I'm going to give this to the US- while every country has strong patriotism, I suspect the US would be the most pig-headed and unwilling to concede small defeats, combined with possibly the highest tech military overall, would result in a very costly invasion.
Bloodiest invasion: I'm inclined to go with China on this one, because of their large composition of conscripts and reserve soldiers, which would result in above average casualty numbers.
Longest Invasion: Probably the best reflection of territory; Russia has sheer size on its side, but also a rather inhospitable nature to top this category.
And the "best in show" category: Most difficult invasion: I'm British, so I'm hesitant to give it to the UK, but I'm going to for a few reasons. One I'm not entirely sure about, but given the size of the UK, I suspect our military is fairly small compared to the large countries, and as a result, our specialised units (such as special forces) will be disproportionate compared to large countries, be that SAS and other special forces, Royal Marines Commandos, or Ghurkas. Scaling up, that may give the UK a very significant advantage with your hypothetical parameters.
The UK maintains a well trained professional army by continuing to participate in armed conflicts around the world. The UK is an island nation and thus any invasion would have to be amphibious/airborne (I'd hate to think of the logistics supporting such an invasion)- combined with a balanced Army/Navy/Airforce and a small landmass, very capable of putting up heavy resistance at any point. It's also the most urbanised, urban warfare still proving to be the most difficult form of warfare to this day.
Assuming Spartans retained their armed forces skill and disposition, but existed to this day using modern weapons, I think their military force would be quite formidable. Combined with your even-forces stipulation, they'd theoretically do very well in a pound-for-pound fight. However, I think France would come out on top if you were to imagine historical armies brought up to date, due to Napoleon. He may have had his flaws (being unwilling to risk his favourite elite troops, for one) but he did manage to terrorise Europe repeatedly and inspired whole coalitions against him. An invasion against Napoleon would be the most costly, as it'd probably result in a counter-invasion and an overall loss.
OK, so back to modern forces. I think ultimately it's going to boil down to the five big boys: US, Russia, UK, France and China, mainly due to their access to the nuclear option. If such an option were deployed in response to an invasion, it would instantly top all the stated categories, as it'd be as good as a loss (probably for both involved). So, out of those five...
Costliest invasion: I'm going to give this to the US- while every country has strong patriotism, I suspect the US would be the most pig-headed and unwilling to concede small defeats, combined with possibly the highest tech military overall, would result in a very costly invasion.
Bloodiest invasion: I'm inclined to go with China on this one, because of their large composition of conscripts and reserve soldiers, which would result in above average casualty numbers.
Longest Invasion: Probably the best reflection of territory; Russia has sheer size on its side, but also a rather inhospitable nature to top this category.
And the "best in show" category: Most difficult invasion: I'm British, so I'm hesitant to give it to the UK, but I'm going to for a few reasons. One I'm not entirely sure about, but given the size of the UK, I suspect our military is fairly small compared to the large countries, and as a result, our specialised units (such as special forces) will be disproportionate compared to large countries, be that SAS and other special forces, Royal Marines Commandos, or Ghurkas. Scaling up, that may give the UK a very significant advantage with your hypothetical parameters.
The UK maintains a well trained professional army by continuing to participate in armed conflicts around the world. The UK is an island nation and thus any invasion would have to be amphibious/airborne (I'd hate to think of the logistics supporting such an invasion)- combined with a balanced Army/Navy/Airforce and a small landmass, very capable of putting up heavy resistance at any point. It's also the most urbanised, urban warfare still proving to be the most difficult form of warfare to this day.
According to Risk, that would be Australia. I always take and fortify Australia as my first target.
Fun fact. A few years ago there was a huge military training thing where several nations tried to "invade" Norway. One submarine managed to defeat all the forces at sea at the point where NATO wouldn't allow submarines used the rest of the time.
Still, I think Switzerland would be the hardest to invade since it's a difficult country to get into with force with their mountain ranges and such natural defenses. The military there is quite excessive and well trained. Yeah, they would be hard to take.
You have to remember: amount of soldiers and technology isn't always the only factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War Yeah...
Still, I think Switzerland would be the hardest to invade since it's a difficult country to get into with force with their mountain ranges and such natural defenses. The military there is quite excessive and well trained. Yeah, they would be hard to take.
You have to remember: amount of soldiers and technology isn't always the only factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War Yeah...
Hmm kinda hard.
Coldest: Russia, Its called Siberia for a reason.
Bloodiest: China, the sheer amount of people that it would take to get though...
Longest: This one is hard, but I would have to give this one to America. Damn near all of us own guns (seriously I have three and I'm against the concept (inherited guns I must add), and when we get pissed, we get pissed.
Hardest: Such a subjective term. I would give this one to China. With its nuclear capabilities, militaristic government, and the sheer number of people that their disposal (it sounds so cold "disposal") I hope that isn't where the next President has in his sights.
Coldest: Russia, Its called Siberia for a reason.
Bloodiest: China, the sheer amount of people that it would take to get though...
Longest: This one is hard, but I would have to give this one to America. Damn near all of us own guns (seriously I have three and I'm against the concept (inherited guns I must add), and when we get pissed, we get pissed.
Hardest: Such a subjective term. I would give this one to China. With its nuclear capabilities, militaristic government, and the sheer number of people that their disposal (it sounds so cold "disposal") I hope that isn't where the next President has in his sights.
I'm going to try and come up with something a little off the wall. The US would be the toughest in every category, of course, since getting past the Navy would be just about impossible to start with. It'd be like attacking an alternate-world Russia stuck in perpetual winter. Russia, India, Great Britain, and China would, of course, be very difficult, too.
I'm going to say Turkey. They've got a strong, proud military tradition, favorable geography, and you'd have a hard time even launching an invasion against them. Where are you going to attack from, especially without angering neighboring countries?
Needless to say, France loses this thread. Probably in six weeks.
I'm going to say Turkey. They've got a strong, proud military tradition, favorable geography, and you'd have a hard time even launching an invasion against them. Where are you going to attack from, especially without angering neighboring countries?
Needless to say, France loses this thread. Probably in six weeks.
100 years ago maybe. Truth of the matter is, that 9mm Beretta isn't going to do you much good against that BMP coming down your street.snowpuppy said:
The argument that "Right to bear arms" is a deterrent to invasion or despotism ran out of gas with the invention of machine guns and Mobile Armor.
Honestly, I think China rates up there pretty high in the "Hard to invade" category. A police state with that many people in it is going to be a major bear to take down.
Well you have to take into account geography as well, not just manpower and technology. Russia has huge, long mainly unpopulated borders with multiple nations. Getting it wouldn't be that hard. Although once your in taking it over would be hard. Mainly because there's so much land. It's why the Germans had trouble back in 1941-1945. They keep rolling across the Russian plains and the Russians could just keep falling back.
America on the other hand you either have to go through Canada (which is a good invasion area though) or Mexico, otherwise you're crossing an entire ocean just to establish beachheads. Although hitting the Eastern Coast would take out a lot of the populated area.
Switzerland would be rather hard due to it's hilly terrain, and that isn't helped by the fact that the Swiss military takes advantage of that. Chile would probably be another hard one. Either you're invading from the Pacific (which once again means long supply lines) or from Argentina in which case you're crossing the Andes. Or how about Bhutan or Nepal? Each of their entire country is pretty much all mountains. And the Himalayan mountains at that.
Anyway that's my two cents. As disjointed as it is.
America on the other hand you either have to go through Canada (which is a good invasion area though) or Mexico, otherwise you're crossing an entire ocean just to establish beachheads. Although hitting the Eastern Coast would take out a lot of the populated area.
Switzerland would be rather hard due to it's hilly terrain, and that isn't helped by the fact that the Swiss military takes advantage of that. Chile would probably be another hard one. Either you're invading from the Pacific (which once again means long supply lines) or from Argentina in which case you're crossing the Andes. Or how about Bhutan or Nepal? Each of their entire country is pretty much all mountains. And the Himalayan mountains at that.
Anyway that's my two cents. As disjointed as it is.